When is a whistleblower not a whistleblower?

An anonymous source leaked internal documents from Libertarian thinktank Heartland to hydro-climatologist and climate debate figure Dr. Peter H. Gleick. These documents discussed fundraising and strategies for fostering climate change doubts within schools. Under someone else's name, Gleick pursued the leak and received more documents, which he then turned over for publication. He's (1) commendable for truth-seeking and/or (2) guilty for his methods.

In the op-ed "The Heartland Affair: A Climate Champion Cheats—and We All Lose", Time magazine's Science desk Going Green columnist condemns Gleick, citing journalistic standards (because Gleick publishes on Huffington Post) and drawing support from a confession the would-be whistleblower himself published in Huffington Post. In that confession, Gleick admits to "a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics" and says he regrets his actions.

No doubt Gleick disapproves of Heartland's tactics and holds a higher standard for himself in this climate "debate" messaging war. He is very clear about this. He's also clear on where he stands in the larger debate. The Time columnist shows less courage, condemning the confessor while saying nothing substantive of its context. The point of his column is that "if a reporter lies in the pursuit of facts, the resulting story will be much harder to believe, even if it really is true". If in this case that happens to be true, it's only thanks to columnists like this who, cynically writing under the header Going Green, further obfuscate the debate, leaving casual readers to come away thinking "another global warming advocate lied".

Notes:

• Where is the story on Heartland's tactics?
• If global warming/climate change was my issue, this would frustrate me.

Don't Look Back

Recently The New York Times moderate Conservative political columnist David Brooks asked readers over age 70 for a "gift":

...write a brief report on your life so far, an evaluation of what you did well, of what you did not so well and what you learned along the way. You can write this as a brief essay or divide your life into categories — career, family, faith, community, and self-knowledge — and give yourself a grade in each area.

A morbid request, I think, but people obliged. Brooks' sampling will in the end lack diversity, but so far it volunteers interesting narratives. Any pattern of self-judgement is elusive. Some writers regret disastrous decisions because of their consequences, while others disregard effects, choosing instead to emphasize the values symbolized in the decision, like courage. In all, the essays offer no real surprises. The source of greatest fulfillment and greatest regret was usually love and family. Failed marriages were a common theme, inspiring regrets, except in the case of one man who remained friends with his exes. Estranged children caused pain, while relationships with adult children bring rewards.

The current of familial autopsies denotes an irony Brooks will likely miss or ignore: His respondents don't reflect the success of moral-majority ideals Brooks would like to impart. Rather, with their multiple marriages, estranged children, and indifference (or, sometimes, bitterness) towards religion, these folks represent a reality the self-righteous can't acknowledge--that however well-meaning one may be, we all suffer personal shortcomings and from circumstances that make strict adherence to value codes all but impossible. Sometimes we fail. Sometimes we need help and second and third chances.

Brooks thinks self-reflection is valuable and not performed often enough. That's a debatable if not dubious claim. He also thinks these essays might prove a good resource for the young. Could they instead prove harmful and confusing? Seeing ourselves as subjects fit for analysis comes so naturally.

All or nothing when talking values and money

In this week's editorial, David Brooks either misses the point or hopes to talk around it.

He argues that the Occupy protest movement targets the wrong type of inequality. To make his argument, Brooks organizes inequality into two varieties conveniently named Blue and Red. According to Brooks, Blue inequality--the target of the Occupy movement--consists of the wealth gap between the elite business/finance sector and everyone else. Red inequality consists of the opportunity and values gap between college graduates and those who never make it to college.

The differences between college grads and non-college grads, Brooks says, are "inequalities of family structure, child rearing patterns and educational attainment". Besides making the sweeping generalization that college graduates are better at raising children and run better homes, Brooks makes the common mistake of separating values and economics and then emphasizing one at the expense of the other. The poor need stable, good paying jobs to support a family the way Brooks wants them to. Liberals tend to overemphasize the economics of poverty, while Conservatives focus on values.

Towards his conclusion, Brooks writes that Blue inequality is "not nearly as big a problem as the 40 percent of children who are born out of wedlock. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent." With jobs being outsourced or eliminated due to downsizing, and with workers' wages stagnant while CEO pay skyrockets, Brooks is naive to think that if only the poor married before having children, their conditions would improve and opportunity would follow.